Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary

[Todd Boyle]

Regarding Tim May, Tyler Durden, and Anonymous's stupid
thread, Robert, why are you reposting this shit?  This is supposed
to be a "Digital Bearer Settlement List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".

Is killing blacks, or racism, a commonly held belief or practice,
in the digital settlement industry?  Is this somehow, like,
business enhancing for you, in IBUC?

For that matter, is there any conceptual association between
killing people, and payments with digital currencies?

What's your point, in mirroring the worst of the crypto lists?
There's plenty of good stuff there... are you doing this to
be cool?  For the shock value or something?

What are you doin?  Just entertaining yourself?
Whiling away the years?

I thought you had some goals, or purpose, in what you're
doing.

Todd

At 02:20 PM 1/12/2003, R. A. Hettinga wrote:


--- begin forwarded text


Status:  U
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:30:17 -0800
Subject: Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 12:55  PM, Sleeping Vayu - Vayu
Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> At 09:33 PM 01/10/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
>> For all I know, I've been posting on a list haunted by a bunch of
>> crypto-white supremists (crypto, as in secret, hidden). And if that's
>> the case, then I want to know. Figured I'd ask for clarification on
>> this issue. (And from some of May's comments in the past, it wasn't
>> clear to me.)
>
> As a matter of fact, I and Tim May regularly go nigger
> hunting in the hills, me with my SKS.  Tim May is not so
> keen on those commie guns, and usually has a good old
> American AR15

Though I often favor a eurotrash FN-FAL.

As for being "crypto-white," the Zionist slur used by Seymour
Goldstein, er, "Tyler Durden," he must be confusing me with my group,
the "Crypto Whites Foundation."

www.cryptowhites.org is devoted to making strong privacy and crypto
tools available to oppressed persons of whiteness in Europe, America,
and ZOG-occupied Palestine.

Donations to support my salary are welcome.


--Tim May

--- end forwarded text


--
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary

[Tim May]

On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 12:55  PM, Sleeping Vayu - Vayu 
Anonymous Remailer wrote:

At 09:33 PM 01/10/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:

For all I know, I've been posting on a list haunted by a bunch of
crypto-white supremists (crypto, as in secret, hidden). And if that's
the case, then I want to know. Figured I'd ask for clarification on
this issue. (And from some of May's comments in the past, it wasn't
clear to me.)


As a matter of fact, I and Tim May regularly go nigger
hunting in the hills, me with my SKS.  Tim May is not so
keen on those commie guns, and usually has a good old
American AR15


Though I often favor a eurotrash FN-FAL.

As for being "crypto-white," the Zionist slur used by Seymour 
Goldstein, er, "Tyler Durden," he must be confusing me with my group, 
the "Crypto Whites Foundation."

www.cryptowhites.org is devoted to making strong privacy and crypto 
tools available to oppressed persons of whiteness in Europe, America, 
and ZOG-occupied Palestine.

Donations to support my salary are welcome.


--Tim May

Gun Ownership in America, It's bigger than the 2nd

[Jim Choate]

From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Constitutional analysis of the right to bear arms
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:07:32 -0500 (CDT)


A Review of The Constitution and The Use of Force:
--

[Here is where the federal government is given the job of protecting the
union and the people thereof]

We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

[This is where the federal government is directed to foot the bill for the
protection of the union and the people]

Section 8.  The Congress shall have Power  To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[This is where the federal government is directed to do three things,
form a navy, form an army, and form a militia. It is of some import to note
that the federal government is explicity directed to *arm* the militia,
train the militia; the states are directed to appoint its officers. Note
also that it *explicity* directs the federal government to use the militia
in internal disputes. Not only do the people have a right to bear arms, the
federal government is obliged to provide them if a member of the militia.]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
of the Officers, and the authority of training and Militia according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[Clearly the militia are not an arm of the states themselves since militia
are clearly troops. There is also the explicit recognition that if the
federal or state governments can't protect the states via the navy, army, or
militia they are directed to protect themselves. This would be impossible if
there wasn't an assumption to the people having ready access to weapons.]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any
Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage
in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit
of delay.

[Here we find that the President is *only* commander in chief of the
military when they are called into use *by Congress*. The current claims of
the executive that they have the authority to distribute troops is incorrect
- they have no authority without Congress' approval.]

Section 2.  The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several States, when called
into the actual Service of the United States; ...

[Here we find that the Executive is also limited in matters of domestic
tranquility unless the Congress can't be convened. Again, the Executive has
no authority, except in a particular situation, without Congress' approval.]

Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union
a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when
the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

[Here we find that the 2nd is really about derailing any arguments that the
*only* way a citizen can own a weapon is through the militia. When taken in
toto it is clear the 2nd is about citizens of the US protecting themselves
against other citizens of the US. There is *no* issue of hunting or other
diatribe against individual gun ownership. Any federal level law regulating
weapons is unconstitutional if it prohibits a citizen from obtaining a
weapon of their choosing, unless we change the 2nd. Amendment.]

ARTICLE II.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.

   ARTICLE III.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any home
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to
be prescribed 

Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary

[Sleeping Vayu - Vayu Anonymous Remailer]

At 09:33 PM 01/10/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> For all I know, I've been posting on a list haunted by a bunch of
> crypto-white supremists (crypto, as in secret, hidden). And if that's
> the case, then I want to know. Figured I'd ask for clarification on
> this issue. (And from some of May's comments in the past, it wasn't
> clear to me.)

As a matter of fact, I and Tim May regularly go nigger
hunting in the hills, me with my SKS.  Tim May is not so
keen on those commie guns, and usually has a good old
American AR15

Of course, in the hills around here there usually are no
damned niggers, but sometimes we get a pig.  Niggers are
pretty rare.   To catch a nigger, you need the right bait.

The tricky thing is to lure a nigger out of his native haunts,
to someplace far away and lonely with no one knowing where
he went.  Fortunately a friend of ours sometimes hires some
nigger pussy to give him a good time in his house out in the
woods.  Then of course the lady tells her numerous boyfriends
about all the good stuff he has, and pretty soon there are
some niggers out to rob him.  They usually get caught in one
of his traps, and if a couple of days pass and it seems that
no one is missing that nigger, I and Tim May have a it of fun
killing it.   It is not really as sporting as finding one in
hills, so usually we torture it a bit then give it a short
head start, track it through the hills by bloodstains, and then
shoot it.

There are quite a few entertaining ways of torturing a nigger
before you kill it. Books are one of the best -- they have the
same effect on a nigger as kryptonite on superman.

Re: QM, EPR, A/B

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:

> Replying to Blah Jim Choate wrote...
>
> >>It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against
> >>which speeds must be referenced.
>
> >Wrong.
>
> OK, Senior Choate,

Pot, Kettle, Black. You should consider asking Tim for membership in the
CACL contingent.

> let's try to communicate here. The phrase you missed in
> Blah's sentence above is "absolute reference frame", and this sentence is
> conscise and precise enough that had we sent it back to about 1890, they
> probably would have been able to derive special relativity from it.

And what -you- keep missing is his reference to -velocity-. There -is- a
reference frame against which -any- velocity can be measured, c. Thus his
statement is incorrect, as is yours. He is -not- talking about 'time' or
'space', he (and you) is in fact comparing apples and oranges.

Look at the Lorentz Transformation, what is 'v' compared to? 'c'.

There is -no- special time-space reference frame. That is -not- equivalent
to 'c' or 'velocity/speed'.

What is 'c'? It is a constant ratio between distance and time. That ratio
is a constant, axiomatically so for Relativity.

I suspect that what 'Blah' -meant- by his commentary that you couldn't
write a transformation for a photon was the fact the equation either
provides a '0' or 'infinity' as an answer depending on how one applies it
(eg time, mass respectively). Clearly photons interact with the cosmos so
they -must- be a valid candidate for an 'observer'. This means that there
must be a transformation to view the cosmos from their perspective. No
exceptions on that one, sorry. Photons are not -special-, otherwise we'd
have an axiomatic conflict and the whole house of cards comes crashing
down. If you believe that no such transform is constructable then don't
bother replying, it's a waste of both our energy. I'd also suggest you
take up another interest other than physics.

What I am saying is that the Lorentz Transform is not complete/sufficient
to explain what is going on. Whatever is going on with photons isn't magic
or anything else, it's just the way the cosmos works.

The transform works for all 'v' <'c', -but not equal to 'c'-. There is a
comparable transform we can look at to see the problem. Mapping a sphere onto
a plane. The mapping works for all points -but the N. pole- of the sphere.
Think of the north pole as comparable to 'c', or latitude is comparble to
'v' if you will.

>From relativity physics (and a little imagination to extend the results of
the transform if not it's absolute representation) we know the following:

-   Photons are very weakly interacting particles, they have no mass
are are point-like, they are the boson for the EM force

All the QM 'paradoxes' we have discussed so far relate to some
sort of interaction with a photon, that implies to me that there
is something about a photon we don't understand

-   When the v of a particle approaches c its mass grows without limit

Note that a photon has no rest mass, so there isn't anything to
grow to infinity. This appears to be a non-problem in viewing
the cosmos from a photons perspective.

-   When the v of a particle approaches c it's time reference frame,
it's view of the rest of the cosmos's clocks approaches 0.

This means that from a photons perspective the cosmos has no time
reference.

-   When the v of a particle approaches c it's distance scale, along
the line of flight, approaches 0.

From a photons perspective the cosmos has no distance along its
line of flight. There are some other issues that would seem to
imply that a photon has no particular 'line of flight' and that
would seem to imply that it sees the cosmos as a point in -any-
'direction'.

The typical example is to imagine yourself on a spaceship moving
toward 'c'. What does the cosmos look like as you look out the
window? It begins to form a ring around your axis with a black
void forward and backward. One may extrapolate

-   The Lorentz Transform is written as a function of scalars, as
is your presentation of it, yet the actual cosmos is a set of
vectors. Now those vectors are written in reference to a
-particular- time-space reference frame. The principle of
simultaneity comes into play here.

One must be very careful about derivations of functions when
one feeds them the wrong data type.

Q: In the 2-slit experiment in what direction is the photons 'line of
   flight' in relation to the axis of the two slits?

A: They are for all intents and purposes co-axial. From the photons
   perspective the experimental apparatus has -no length-

One last commment, QM (or any science for that matter) is -not- religion.
It is -ok- to play with its assumptions (in fact its required). You make
the same mistake th

Re: washingtonpost.com || Bush To Name Tech Security Leaders (fwd)

[Bill Stewart]

An interesting article, with some information on the people
who'll probably be appointed to run the Department of Homelands Security's
division of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

But somebody has to make the bad pun, because otherwise it's just sitting 
there -
we fought Clipper a few years ago, so now I guess we'll have to fight 
Clapper

Actually, according to the article, Retired General Clapper
has been a Beltway Bandit and currently runs the National Imagery and
Mapping Agency (satellite photo analysis), and Stewart Baker thinks
highly of his management abilities.  There's also discussion of
various people who might be working under him, including
Nuala O'Connor Kelly, formerly DoubleClick's deputy privacy offer.

At 11:14 AM 01/12/2003 -0600, Jim C. wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:20:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: washingtonpost.com || Bush To Name Tech Security Leaders

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34171-2003Jan9.html?referer=email


One senior intelligence officer said Clapper faces a "monstrous" task.

"Everything else looks easy in comparison," he said. "Either part of his
bifurcated title is tough enough. Put them both together, and it's mission
impossible ... If it's not mission impossible, it's mission in need of a
miracle."

Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
>
> > Any time you post to a list of a bunch of people you don't know,
> > you might be posting to a list of a bunch of people you don't like.
> > Reading the archives sometimes helps.
>
> A (hopefully) helpful hint for the newcomers to this list: Bill is usually
> the voice of reason and of patience here. Pay attention when he posts.

YMMV...


 --


  We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
  are going to spend the rest of our lives.

  Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

  [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.ssz.com   www.open-forge.org

Re: pray daily

[Adam Stenseth]

Any particular reason this time, or just on general principle?

-adam


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Anonymous wrote:

>
>   We must all pray daily that someone will kill Bush ASAP.

Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:

> For all I know, I've been posting on a list haunted by a bunch of
> crypto-white supremists (crypto, as in secret, hidden). And if that's the
> case, then I want to know. Figured I'd ask for clarification on this issue.
> (And from some of May's comments in the past, it wasn't clear to me.) If
> that makes me a moron, so be it.

There is definitely a faction of this sort on this list, has always been.
Will always be. I just lump the whole kit and kaboodle into the 'CACL
Contingent'.

May's one of the leaders of that contingent. He's into 'freedom for me,
but not for thee'.

> BTW...You're not the guy with the "Chomsky Dis" website are you?

He's the one who claims Chomsky is lying and then retracts the statement.
What he's got is exactly what Chomsky called it 'a joke' (and I'm no big
supporter of Chomsky, either his science or his politics).

I'm still waiting for James to provide the other references he claims are
on that page, but aren't. He claims to have done a thorough study of
Chomsky's work and developed a list of bad references and such. Though he
has steadfastly refused to share it with anyone (and it is -not- on that
page as he has claimed on this list several times). I asked one (and ask
again) what references in 'Deterring Democracy' are bogus? I'm still
waiting for a clear, honest answer to that one. I suspect it is a futile
wait.


 --


  We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
  are going to spend the rest of our lives.

  Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

  [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.ssz.com   www.open-forge.org

washingtonpost.com || Bush To Name Tech Security Leaders (fwd)

[Jim Choate]

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:20:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: washingtonpost.com || Bush To Name Tech Security Leaders


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34171-2003Jan9.html?referer=email


One senior intelligence officer said Clapper faces a "monstrous" task.

"Everything else looks easy in comparison," he said. "Either part of his
bifurcated title is tough enough. Put them both together, and it's mission
impossible ... If it's not mission impossible, it's mission in need of a
miracle."